Re: cladobabble--here we go again

[Dale <frog@cncnet.com>]

Dale wrote:
> 
> King, Norm wrote:
> >
> > Jonathon Woolf wrote (11/14/97; 6:37a):
> >
> > >OK, time for another of those stupid questions for which I am
> > >probably becoming infamous...
> >
> > None of your questions are stupid.  Any one who thinks they are should
> > re-evaluate his/her own attitudes.  I hope there are always people around
> > who refuse to embrace new ideas until they have become old, tried and
> > true ideas (and maybe not even then). Our minds all work differently, and
> > such diversity can become the stuff of brilliance.  Let's not put too
> > much "peer pressure" on conformity to ideas.  Conformity to professional
> > standards, yes, but not to ideas.
> >
> 
> >
> >
> >
>  .  All taxa should be defined in the same way so they are
> >  OK, everybody--I've put on my fireproof suit, and now it's your turn.
> >
> > *-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
> > Norman R. King                                       tel:  (812) 464-1794
> > Department of Geosciences                            fax:  (812) 464-1960
> > University of Southern Indiana
> > 8600 University Blvd.
> > Evansville, IN 47712                      e-mail:  nking.ucs@smtp.usi.edu
>    It seems to be quite a struggle to master cladobabble, IMHO this is
> a very large deterant for the public to learn and support all the
> effort involved in palioantology, "if I can't pronounce it, how the
> hell can I spell it, or visualize in my mind what it is"?
>                                          some frustration showing.
>                                          Earl Wood
>                                          frog@cncnet.com

-- 
L